Wyoming has opted out of the federal exemptions for debtors
who have been domiciled in Wyoming “for the one hundred
eighty (180) days immediately preceding the date of the filing
of the petition or for a longer portion of the one hundred eighty
(180) day period than in any other place.” Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-
20-109.
Debtors to whom the above opt-out provision does not apply
may use the federal exemptions. In re Chandler, 2007 WL
643319 (Bankr.N.D.W.Va.2007) (because Georgia had not
opted out for nonresidents, debtor was eligible for federal
exemptions); In re Battle, 2006 WL 3702734 (Bankr.w.d.n.y.
2006) (Florida’s opt-out, which was limited to residents, did not
bar debtor from claiming federal exemptions); In re Underwood,
342 B.R. 358 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.2006) (because debtor was not a
resident of Colorado on date of filing and Colorado’s opt-out
was limited to residents, debtor was eligible for federal
exemptions); In re Schulz, 101 B.R. 301 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.1989)
(because debtor was not resident of Florida on date of filing
and Florida’s opt-out was limited to residents, debtor was
entitled to federal exemptions); In re Volk, 26 B.R. 457 (Bankr.
D.S.D.1983) (debtors were eligible for federal exemptions
because South Dakota’s opt-out was limited to residents); In re
Walley, 9 B.R. 55 (Bankr.S.D.Ala.1981) (because Alabama’s
opt-out was limited to residents and debtor was not a resident
of Alabama on date of filing, debtor could use the federal
exemptions).
Debtors to whom the above opt-out provision does apply and
who are not residents of Wyoming on the date of filing (and,
therefore, do not qualify for Wyoming's state exemptions), may
use the federal exemptions under the saving provision in 11
USC § 522(b), which states, “If the effect of the domiciliary
requirement under subparagraph (A) is to render the debtor
ineligible for any exemption, the debtor may elect to exempt
property that is specified under subsection (d).” In re West,
352 B.R. 905 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006) (because debtor was not
resident of Indiana and its exemptions were limited to
residents, its exemptions were not available to her and debtor
was eligible for the federal exemptions under the saving
provision); In re Jewell, 2006 WL 2258363 (Bankr.W.D.N.Y.
2006) (debtors, who were not residents of Colorado on date of
filing were not eligible for its exemptions because its
exemptions were limited to residents but debtors were eligible
for federal exemptions under the saving provision); In re
Crandall, 2006 WL 2051367 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.2006) (because
debtor was not domiciled in New York on the date of filing, and
its exemptions were limited to domiciliaries, debtor was eligible
for federal exemptions under the saving provision); In re
Underwood, 342 B.R. 358 (Bankr.N.D.Fla.2006) (savings
provision would entitle debtor to federal exemptions if Colorado’
s opt-out applied to her); In re Robedee, 2007 WL 1576139 (S.
D.Fla. 2007) (if applicable state provides no exemptions to
nonresidents, they may use the federal exemptions under the
saving clause); In re Nickerson, 375 B.R. 869 (Bankr.W.D.Mo.
2007) (debtors who are unable to take advantage of state
exemptions because they no longer reside in that state may
use the federal exemptions under the saving provision); In re
Fabert, 2008 WL 104104 (Bankr.D.Kan.2008) (debtor fits
squarely within the saving provision because applicable state
denies debtor its exemptions).